One argument for Occam's razor in metaphysical matters that I've always suspected is roughly true is that once you start adding unnecessary undetectable epicycles to describe the content of the world, such arbitrarily more complex theories cancel each other out (at least at high complexity).
Anyway, it just occurred to me that the theist cosmological argument has an equal in a cosmological argument for an anti-god of *infinitesimal* rather than infinite capacity, etc.
The argument is basically this: what could bridge the gap between non-existence and existence? Something of infinitesimal existence.
Indeed there are reasons to take this hypothesis more seriously than the "god" hypothesis. Consider: the existence of an infinitely capable, infinitely existing god doesn't really engage with the question of "why is there something rather than nothing?"
Whereas the "anti-god" hypothesis at least answers it!
Say what you will about "anti-god" but it makes at least as much if not more sense for there to be an (infinitesimally weak, semi-non-existing, semi-existing) bridge between nothing and something than for there to just be an infinitely powerful always existing thing surrounded arbitrarily by the void of non-being for infinity before randomly creating the universe.
Anti-god is strong enough to momentarily exist and create something from nothing but too weak to continue or influence it again.
@rechelon Probably needs some context I guess.
"we" sit on the world, that being existence as we perceive and know it. on the left the positive, the all. on the right the negative the nothing. between the two, where the creases touch is existence.
William Gillis 🏴
Bishop Whitewind